Around the world, millions of scientists conduct their studies by testing their research on animals. Many people believe that experimenting on animals is crucial to the advancement of medical discoveries. Studies show however, that animal experimentation is brutal and unnecessary. There are alternatives though: “replacement, reduction, and refinement” (Howard 2).
Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.
Doesn’t it kill you to see a movie and see an animal get killed or just hurt in it? Good thing that’s all special effects. Back in the day, around 1966, movies didn’t always use special effects. Khartoum, a movie based on a holy war in the Sudan desert, directed by Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon, used horses a great deal, but did not use the special effects in order to not hurt the animals. Many horses died in the making of this movie, as well as others, even including a major hit, Ben-Hur. Today, there are many activist groups that fight for and about the unfair treatment and protection for animals in everyday life. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is one of these groups. PETA was founded in
According to Gallup.com a third of Americans want animals to have the same rights as people. The Animal Bill of Right implies that animals have the right to be free from exploitation and cruelty, It also prohibits laboratory animals to be used for research. Animals will also have healthy diets and medical care. It will also provide them with an environment that satisfies their needs. I do not believe we need a Bill of Rights for animals. This would not only be extreme but it will affect human culture, medical research, and cost of food
Throughout history, humans have utilized nonhuman animals for the benefit of mankind. This tendency increased as civilization developed, and presently, necessitated by staggering population growth and technological progress, human use of animals has skyrocketed. We eat them, we breed them, we use them as test subjects. Some people have begun to question the ethics of it all, sparking a debate on animal treatment and whether or not they have rights. In a paper on the subject, Carl Cohen lays out his definition of rights, explains their relationship with obligations, and uses these ideas to present the argument that manifests clearly in his piece’s title, “Why Animals Have No Rights”. THESIS
Animal testing has been one of the issues that people are fighting overtime because of its moral. Even though some results of tests are successful on people, many people are still fighting for the animal’s rights. They believe that animals should have their own rights to live a free life where they belong, just like their species. In scientists point of view, animals have been one of the main subjects to test on, but a lot of them are currently looking forward to use and develop alternatives for the cruel act of animal testing.
Today, the discussions about the protection of the animal’s rights have received the attention of many people, many countries in the world. A lot of actions have been made by animal right activists to influence the world. Alex Epstein and Yaron Book, both authors of the “The Evil of Animal ‘Right’,” argue animal right activists use too much violence on their action, which is considered going against the law. Then, the authors give a lot of evidence to prove testing animals are extinct, but using animals for testing gives us new vaccines which make our lives better. Without animals for testing, how can scientists find out the vaccine for diseases? Animal right groups are making many effects to Huntingdon Life Sciences.
Is the human race ready to sacrifice lives in order to protect the welfare of animals? Is the human race ready to justify trading human lives for animal lives? Even though we should make every effort ensure that animals are not wantonly harmed in research, animals certainly do not have the same rights as humans do. Many animal rights activists condemn research on animals, citing that it is inhumane. But prohibiting research on animals would be even more inhumane. Research on animals has eradicated many diseases and saved the lives of millions, and discontinuing doing so will generate disastrous consequences. Because of extremely advantageous health advancements that have benefited, and will continue to benefit, the lives of human beings, research on animals should continue to be allowed.
When discussing the issues faced from an ethical standpoint of animal rights it is important to consider the benefits animals bring to people and then question what rights animals are entitled to due to this (Fisher). Taking that into account, one must ask if giving them rights could possibly overstep on human rights and would animals even be able to enjoy rights (Fisher). It is often debated that the benefits and knowledge through experimentation of animals have led to life-saving advancements in the field of science and medicine (Fisher). The other side of the debate argues that even if these past benefits are justified, these type of experiments are no longer necessary and it is deemed unacceptable that wrongful treatment of animals is done for this purpose (Fisher). When it comes to the question of
Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.
In 1937, a pharmaceutical company in the USA created a preparation of sulfanilamide, using diethylene glycol (DEG) as a solvent, and called the preparation ‘Elixir Sulfanilamide’. DEG was poisonous to humans, but the company’s chief pharmacist and chemist was not aware of this, He simply added raspberry flavoring to the sulfa drug, which he had dissolved in DEG, and the company marketed the product. The preparation led to mass poisoning causing the deaths of more than a hundred people. No animal testing was done (Hajar 2011.).
Argument for Animal Rights The argument for animal rights assumes that animals posses their own lives and deserve to be assigned rights in order to protect their wellbeing. This view insists that animals are not merely goods utilised only to benefit mankind and they should be allowed to choose how they want to live their lives, free from the constraints of man. But if animals are given absolute rights, then surely they shouldn’t be allowed to kill each other, as this would be a violation of these rights.
In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc.
Non-human animals are given rights only because of their interactions with human beings. Without involvement with humans, animals do not deserve rights. It is through this interaction with humans that animals are even given moral consideration. We do not give rights to a rock simply because it is a creation of Mother Nature, similarly non-human animals do not have rights unless it is in regards to humans. As pointed out by Jan Narveson "morality is a sort of agreement among rational, independent, self-interested persons who have something to gain from entering into such an agreement" (192). In order to have the ability to obtain rights one must be consciously able to enter into an agreement, non-human animals are